The Death Penalty

[The Iceman of the North]

I believe death penalty should be limited to the pro-death penalty crowd.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Iceman,

I believe taxes should be limited to pro-tax people.

;)

[Lightning Lord]

Raidne,

Doesn't that suggest the life of the unjustified murderer is of more value than the murderer's victim? In the sense that the murderer's life must be preserved while the victim's life was not.

I think it suggests that the criminal justice system is better than the criminals and doesn't need to sink to their level.

[Datepalm]

I think the role of the justice system is not to figure out the inherent rightness or wrongness of an action, but simply to keep people/society safe, functioning, modiocumly happy, etc. In that sense when there is a recourse shy of the death penalty, it should be taken. I do think thats a rather reductionist view of what is 'Just', but I can't think of where that might be appropriately decided and what role it should play in figuring out what to do with criminals.

[S John]

Is that all justice is?

I don't know, you're the lawyer! :laugh:

For the record, as with many topics on this board, I just go with my gut for discussion purposes. Its not like I have graphs and charts to pull out, just expressing my thoghts.

But you are correct, I guess it all depends on how you define 'justice'. Is it a set of rules generally agreed upon by a given society? In which case justice would be very fluid, differing somewhat, or a lot, between societies. Or is it something more uniform, some kind of universal standard.

I think that most people would say there is a universal standard... and (predictably) its based on whatever they, or thier society, believes is just. :lol: And in most societies you probably can't make everyone happy anyway. I mean, I generally accept the laws and justice system of the USA, but there are plenty of things I would change if it were up to me. The Iranian government thinks that stoning a woman for adultuery is just. Obviously I find that position to be beyond absurd, and I'll bet a lot of Iranians do too, but try convincing them (the gov't) that its not justice. I'm sure they think that it is.

Personally, I don't think that a life for a life is necessarily just. And probably isn't in most cases (in my view). But there are times when I think it is. Motive, manner it was carried out, number of people... all of these things play a role in forming my opinion. Its not something I would apply across the board: if you kill someone, you die. Its something I'd only like to see applied in rare cicumstances. Rare even amongst murder cases.

[The Iceman of the North]

I believe taxes should be limited to pro-tax people.

As long as this means that all the anti-tax people can be shipped to tax havens like Somalia.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

LL,

I don't necessarily disagree. I was throwing that point out to chew over.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Iceman,

I'd be shocked if there were no taxes extracted from residents by any of the factions in Somalia.

[Guest Raidne]

Doesn't that suggest the life of the unjustified murderer is of more value than the murderer's victim? In the sense that the murderer's life must be preserved while the victim's life was not.

Climb all the way out of the box Scott - the question is why you're talking about "value." Is there some kind of regulated soul-exchange market? A global human life balance sheet that must be reconciled at the end of each month?

I know, I know, this is deep culture for religious people - you take the "even" = "justice" as a premise. That's what you mean when you say "value," right? You're talking about making it "even?" But those aren't words that mean anything to me, a non-Christian, in the overlapping consensus of our democratic society.

That is not to say that I don't think every human life has value, because I do, firmly and deeply. But we're not talking about saving lives - incapacitation is about saving lives. We're talking about ending lives to make things "even" and that just doesn't compute for me. I'm asking why it does for you.

I don't know, you're the lawyer! :laugh:

For the record, as with many topics on this board, I just go with my gut for discussion purposes. Its not like I have graphs and charts to pull out, just expressing my thoghts.

Oh lawyers have no idea either - it's a philosophical question. And the great thing about philosophy is that nobody is more qualified to answer a philosophical question - especially an ethical one - than anybody else.

I agree with you - I think there is a universal component to justice somewhere. Some people would say that procedural fairness is justice. As long as the process is fair, the outcome is just. I don't know if that's it, but that's closer to me than some metaphysical balance scale of human life.

I think for me it's closer to a system where justice is about maintaining a perfect distance between yourself and the other members of your society. It's about giving everyone the maximum amount of freedom they can have while not infringing on the freedom of others. So, in that sense, in the criminal justice system, we should try to give prisoners the maximum amount of freedom that they can have without hurting others.

But, you know, that sounds pretty culturally relative - pretty Western, with the focus on individual freedom. But maybe a focus on collective values would reach the same result. Or maybe not.

ETA: Also, I now have Nothing Better by the Postal Service stuck in my head due to your comment about charts and graphs.

[Derfel Cadarn]

I'm against it, mainly due to the possibility of the wrong people getting executed. I think introducing (or re-introducing) the death penalty in countries that currently dont have it is counter-productive. It would likely result in more murderers going free due to anti-death penalty juries either not wanting to be involved in getting someone killed, or scared of getting an innocent person killed. I can live with the worst murderers/sex offenders being jailed.

My problem with Scotland's justice system is that it's unduly lenient. Glasgow Sheriff Court is the busiest court in Europe, apparently. And it's pretty much the same people turning up again and again. Even murderers get bailed now, and in Scotland there's no bail bond. If bail is broken (which it is with appalling frequency), they penalty for breaching the bail is small, if anything at all.

Our sentences are a sick joke to the victims. Anyone given a 4 year jail sentence or less automatically only serves half of it. There are murderers getting 10 year jail sentences. Convicted rapists (the few rapists who are actually convicted) are in some cases given 4 or 5 years. Not counting people getting released early on licence.

The Scottish Government is trying to abolish short term jail sentences of 6 months and less, relying on Community Service orders. I think about 1/3rd of these orders arent complied with. The result? In many cases the offender is given yet another community service order.

Fines. Another joke. Instead of taking the money automatically from the cuplrit's salary or unemployment money, the system relies on the person paying it themselves, making weekly payments. If they don't a fortune in tax-payer money is spent bring the person back to court. Fortunatly, some courts now use fine enforcement officers which means the police now get fewer warrants with regards to non-payment of fines. If the culprit manages to avoid paying it for three years and avoids being arrested, the fine is cancelled.

I could go on. Being involved in the justice system has been a real eyeopener. The courts are antiquated, slow to change and bogged down in paperwork. The victims of crime play second fiddle to the culprits. There's little deterrance, especially in matters of 'minor' anti-social crime. There are people with more previous convictions than they have years, out walking the street. Prison needs to do a lot more to reform people and fails in that regard, but at least when the criminals are in jail, they're not inflicting more misery on the community.

The lockerbie bomber: A man convicted of killing hundreds of people is released after a few years, supposesdly with three months left to live. He's been ou more than a year and seems to be still going strong. I think the main reason there wasn't a huge outcry over this in the UK is because there's doubt over his guilt. People were asking the politicians if Thomas Hamilton (Killed 16 young kids and a teacher) would have been released if he was supposedly dying. This was denied, however the European Court of Human Rights forced the then-Government to backtrack on the supposed life imprisonment of the Jamie Bulger killers. Who were released years ago. So there's a good chance Thomas Hamilton would have been released at some point if he hadn't done the world a favour and shot himself.

[DrownedCrow]

I'm in favor. Not because of deterrence, just revenge. When did the desire for revenge become such a terrible thing? It's one of life's great pleasures. Live a little guys.

[Guest Raidne]

Hey, at least that's honest. That's, IMHO, a defensible position - that it serves a basic biological human need.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Raidne,

Nah, vengence is empty.

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

I'm for it in principle but against it in practice. I don't want the state possessing that kind of power.

[john]

Classic topic. I think that there's no real logical reason why killing a convicted person shouldn't be the ultimate sanction of the justice system. What, you can lock somebody up but you can't kill them? Moral classification is a big deal in lawmaking and ad hoc decisions, so why shouldn't it apply to degrees of punishment? Of course, in practical terms and in ideal situations it's usually easier, more politic and just as effective to restrict ourselves to lesser methods.

That said, i'm definitely against the death penalty. I can't get past my abhorrence at the idea of ever being a part of killing a living, thinking human being just because they happened to murder someone.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

John,

just because they happened to murder someone

I get where you are coming from regarding an abhorance for killing. That said I don't think we should deminish murder to a meer happenstance.

[john]

Well, when it gets to that stage whatever crime they committed may as well be happenstance. It's the fact that i'd be involved in their killing that's the problem.

But yes, i did make use of hyperbole to diminish the second clause of my sentence in the hope of enhancing my point. :P

[Darkostar]

How is it fair to the family of the victim if the murderer is allowed to live?

[Guest Raidne]

How is fairness enacted for the family of the victim if the killer is killed?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

RC,

Should that even be a consideration? As I said above vengance is empty. When the murderer is executed the victim is just as dead. The only reason I can see that justifies execution is execution prevents that individual from ever harming another person. Hence, that is why I think Mormont's point was so cogent.